If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How can you be suspicious of an author if you haven't read the book? I'm baffled by people that discuss the case with a fixed, or firm opinion when they haven't read much of anything about the case except what is published in US media and propaganda blogs. It's bewildering. I would compare it to a classroom where everyone is given an assignment to come to class prepared to discuss a particular topic, and where everyone decides that they can take a stance and "wing it". Obviously the discussion would be pretty low quality, or filled with confused opinions.

I would like to point out that words such as "pro-conviction" and "pro-guilt" are all about Amanda, not about the case. That is exactly what the Knox public relations team wants ... to make this all about Amanda. This isn't about two Italian prosecutors, and it isn't about a judicial system that differs from that in the United States. This is about a British woman that was murdered in Italy. If one looks at this murder from that starting point, forgetting that Amanda is American, even pretending that the victim is American for the purpose of obtaining objectivity, conclusions may be very different.

well, i work in social media and press and my fingers get numb from typing---easier to say "pro-guilt" than "those who believe the prosecution has a legitimate case" : ( Sorry you feel i have no right to suspicion, and bring the discourse down. Believe it or not, I have read extensively on this case, just do not feel like buying crime novels on Amazon....

Of course, that 10' x 11' or 110 square foot bedroom was too small for a murder scene. Hendry said so, so did Dempsey. The prosecutors, defense lawyers and courts haven't said this ... but that doesn't matter ... if Hendry and Dempsey said it, it must be true. I wonder if a murder has ever occurred in a bathroom ... according to Hendry and Dempsey, this is impossible.

I haven't seen it put that way by either of them. This is what I have found relating to that notion from hendry:

Had Meredith been attacked by multiple individuals, investigators would have found more bloody shoeprints on the floor. More items in the room would have been disturbed. Each attacker would very likely have left multiple DNA traces and perhaps fingerprints inside the room, as Rudy did. Overall, the evidence suggests that Meredith encountered a strong male attacker wielding a knife, who quickly overpowered and mortally wounded her.

They recalled that they ate dinner in the time period between 8:45 and 1 AM. That's was their story. The facts, supported by independent evidence, is that they ate dinner while Amelie was playing on the computer. In fact, their dinner times of 9:30, 10, and 11 were all proven untrue by Dr Sollecito, who testified that they had finished dinner and clean up prior to the 8:42 phone call....

Did Dr. S actually say that, otto? Because my memory is that the Motivation Report holds that Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the spilled water at 8:40ish, and then the Report deduces that dinner was concluded by that time. That was one of the leaps in the MR that made me go, "Huh?"

My my ... what a simplistic interpretation of what I have said about Hendry ... everything reduced to one statement and then my opinion can be dismissed. Excellent! I guess it's not surprising some believe that there is no evidence. Uhm ... the defense objected to the bra clasp and suggested contamination, therefore it must be true. Therefore, there is no evidence.

QED

Funny, that's what I think you've done with Hendry in attempting to discredit him. You still have yet to prove he's a nut by the way. Should we expect a retraction soon?

. . . the defense objected to the bra clasp and suggested contamination, therefore it must be true. Therefore, there is no evidence.. . . (Otto)----well, it cuts both ways. "The prosecution says, thus it is true" can be just as annoying.....

Did Dr. S actually say that, otto? Because my memory is that the Motivation Report holds that Dr. S merely said RS mentioned the spilled water at 8:40ish, and then the Report deduces that dinner was concluded by that time. That was one of the leaps in the MR that made me go, "Huh?"

What should I say ... no, Dr Sollecito was coerced by the police ... bopped on the head ... and out popped the information about the phone call and the dinner time. That's what happened.

well, i work in social media and press and my fingers get numb from typing---easier to say "pro-guilt" than "those who believe the prosecution has a legitimate case" : ( Sorry you feel i have no right to suspicion, and bring the discourse down. Believe it or not, I have read extensively on this case, just do not feel like buying crime novels on Amazon....